It's that time of year again. The malls are begging for conspicuous
consumption. The stores are selling select items at a loss in the hopes
of selling other more profitable goods to those who are there for sale
prices. Twinkling lights are everywhere. Goodwill and stress alike are
rampant. And lawsuitsand threats of lawsuitsabound.

Such complaints have become ubiquitous from both sides of the issue;
lawyers and special interest groups are doing a booming business in
First Amendment matters. The problem, of course, isn't that there
aren't violations of the First Amendment being imposed on a regular
basis. There are. The real problem is that such issues are being made
far more complicated and divisive than they need to be. Perhaps that's
because the lawyers are doing that booming business. Or maybe it's
because those on a mission to change things to their own point of view
aren't inclined to permit the freedom of anyone else to do anything but
agree with them. Whatever the reasons, the results involve a good deal
of money, and no shortage of bad feelings.

The First Amendment guarantees American freedom of religion as well as
implies a separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson affirmed
that interpretation in a January, 1802 letter
to the Danbury Baptist Church in which he wrote "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence
that act of the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of
separation between church and state." Realistically, however, little
interpretation is needed given that the First Amendment is really quite
clear in its statement that the government shall neither prohibit nor
endorse any religion.

Despite that clarity, there are some who seem to insist that freedom of
religion is the same as freedom from religion. Others seem to be
genuinely bewildered by the position of some that government
expressions of Christianity are offensive. Both sides have their valid
points; but both sides mitigate their every argument by being
absolutist. Instead of laws and lawsuits, a little common sense
interjected into the issue would go a long way toward solving the
ongoing problems.

Take a look, for example, at the issue of Christmas displays on public
property. A year ago, a Florida town found itself in legal hot water
because it permitted the display of a menorah on public property but
refused a similar display consisting of a nativity scene. Town
officials insisted that the menorah was a secular, or non-religious,
symbol while the nativity scene was patently Christian. While they were
obviously right about the nativity scene, they were wrong about the
menorah. A menorah is a symbol of the Jewish religion and is related to
the celebration of Hanukkah. It seemed to me at the time that the only
constitutional treatment of the displays was to either permit all of
them or refuse all of them. Eventually, the city agreed and has
rewritten its policies accordingly. But how much time and money was
wasted, and how many hard feelings were generated, merely to get the
city to adopt the kind of reasonable policy it should have had in the
first place?

The school principal in Georgia I mentioned earlier almost certainly
knew better, but on the day before Thanksgiving, he chose to read a
poem over the school intercom that generated offense and complaints
almost before he turned the microphone off. Apparently under the
pretense that it was a poem and so not a prayer, the principal somehow
managed to temporarily justifyat least to himselfthe reading of
material that lamented that officially sanctioned school prayer was
prohibited and which itself ended with the line, "So, Lord, this silent
plea I make..."

Although the poem was offensive to all of those who oppose school
prayer as well as to any non-Christians who were forced to hear it by
virtue of compulsory attendance, there were admittedly a few valid
points made within the reading., While it certainly is a tacit
government endorsement or promotion of a religion to read prayers on
intercoms, there are other cases where students have been disciplined
for reading a Bible on their own time while on school grounds. Groups
or clubs have been actively discriminated against for available meeting
space, advisors, and more when those groups bore some religious
affiliation or another.

Again, the answers are simple. In the case of the former, coercion is
involved. But in the latter, prohibition of religion is central.
Neither of those circumstances are constitutional, and yet the debate
persists with the insistence that either both activities be permitted
or that both be disallowed. The only truly just actions and policies
fall somewhere between the two. If it infringes on the rights of
another, it's wrong; if it permits others to exercise their rights
while the uninterested or offended don't have to hear it, it's all
right. Under those basic guidelines, school assemblies that include
prayers are unconstitutional while Bible study meetings after hours are
perfectly legal.

By constantly demanding that people give up their personal religious
beliefs merely because they happen to be on public property at the
time, First Amendment guarantees of freedom of worship, speech, and
assembly are being violated. At the same time, those who would insist
that the government take on the characteristics of a majority religion
are violating the same precepts even as they engage in discriminatory
behaviors to boot. It's these extremist positions that are causing
still more trouble.

Those citizens and public officials who do their utmost to force others
to recognize their religious beliefs by posting the Ten Commandments or
crosses on public property are begging for lawsuits. Their prayers (pun
intended) are frequently answered. Meanwhile, those who are on a
crusade to strip all mention of religion from public even when those
mentions are being made by private citizens (consider paving bricks
used as fundraisers, for example, which some maintain shouldn't be
allowed any religious content) are violating the very statutes they
claim to be trying so hard to uphold. As a result, the fight is
becoming even more bitter and making inroads into areas where such
opinion truly has no place.

As you read this, a Texas pastor is being sued
for having disciplined a congregant according to the rules of the church. A woman
who committed adultery refused to repent. So, in accordance with church
belief, the pastor of her church advised the congregation she was no
longer a member there and offered a biblical explanation as to why her
membership was being revoked. The woman subsequently sued the pastor.
While a lower court ruled in favor of the minister, an appeals court
reversed that ruling. The case is now being appealed to the Texas State
Supreme Court

If the woman's secular boss had disciplined her according to his
personal religious beliefs, I'd agree that the woman has a case. But
there's a certain set of beliefs one must accept when one follows one
religious faith or another. Since the woman failed to adhere to those
beliefs, the pastor has every right to disassociate himself and his
church from her. After all, to go back to the example of an employer,
the woman would certainly be fired if she proved herself incapable of
doing the job for which she was hired. There's little if any difference
here in practice; in reality, the biggest difference is the one that
makes the pastor's decision even more unquestionable, and that is the
fact it's a religious issue which should be decided solely by religious
authorities. If the courts continue to rule in the woman's favor, the
First Amendment will be dealt a significant blow.

In the meantime, the holidays are rapidly approaching and few seem
inclined to stop fighting either the constraints or reliefs offered by
the First Amendment. Instead, they go shopping and wrap toys in shiny
packages but are offended when others mention that part of the reason
behind all of this gift-giving has to do with Judaism or Christianity.
In fact, many object to the barest mention that those particular
religions have anything to do with anything, even during Hanukkah. Or
on Christmas.

Conversely, there are those who look down their pious noses at those
who choose not to celebrate religiously, and who demand that their own
religious viewpoints be not only acknowledged but given preferential
treatment. These are the people who, since a majority in America are
Christian, think that those who aren't should just sit down, shut up,
and bow their heads out of respect when others are leading them in
Christian prayer.

I've jumped up and down more than once with objections to those who
would impose their religion on others. I feel exactly the same way
about those who would demand their non-religion receive any moreor
lessrespect than that due their opposites. Both sides need to remember
that there can be no freedom of worship when worship is either mandated
or prohibited. The government ought to try to remember that, too, as
well as to recall that equal treatment would better involve positive
inclusion and thus the most possible freedom, rather than
across-the-board discrimination and a universal quashing of the right
to worship as one sees fit.

In the spirit of the First Amendment, have a happy...well, enjoy
whatever it is you celebrate this time of year. Perhaps more people
this year will finally begin to consider letting other people celebrate
whatever it is they celebrate, too, and without complaint. Now that
would be a real gift!

Now available: "Eternal Vigilance: The Best of Lady Liberty 2002-2004"
Exclusively from http://www.ladylibrty.com/
Visit today for news, commentary, and a patriotic goodie shoppe.

TLE AFFILIATE

Great deals on great computer hardwareTiger Direct!Now accepting PayPal